Unpublished Disposition, 886 F.2d 334 (9th Cir. 1986)

No. 88-15837.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Alfredo C. Marquez, District Judge, Presiding.

Before WIGGINS, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges, and WM. MATTHEW BYRNE, Jr., District Judge.^* 

MEMORANDUM^** 

An Arizona trial court convicted Cameron of various counts of assault, burglary, kidnapping, theft, criminal damage and resisting arrest. After exhausting his state remedies, Cameron petitioned the district court for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging constitutional error in his state court proceedings.

The Arizona Court of Appeals found error in the failure of the state trial court to determine Cameron's competency to waive a jury trial, and remanded the case to the trial court for a competency determination. State v Cameron, 146 Ariz 210, 704 P2d 1355, 1358 (ArizApp 1985). The decision to remand for a competency hearing rather than to reverse the conviction was proper: There was an adequate record, containing psychiatric evidence as to petitioner's mental state at the time of the waiver, from which the trial court could make a nunc pro tunc competency determination. See Sieling v Eyman, 478 F2d 211, 215-16 (9th Cir 1973); Evans v Raines, 705 F2d 1479, 1481 (9th Cir 1983).

On remand, the trial court held a competency hearing and determined that Cameron had been competent to waive a jury trial. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed. State v Cameron, CR-11439, CR-11440 (ArizApp June 11, 1986). The trial court made its determination after a review of the trial record and contemporaneous psychiatric reports. The court stated that its decision was based on the standard set forth by the Arizona Court of Appeals. That standard was correct. On these facts, we conclude that Cameron was afforded a constitutionally adequate determination of his competency to stand trial. The determination was fairly supported by the record. See 28 USC Sec. 2254(d) (1982); Maggio v Fulford, 462 US 111, 117 (1983); Evans v Raines, 800 F2d 884, 887-88 (9th Cir 1986).

Cameron also claims that the admission at trial of certain statements he made to a psychiatrist violated his constitutional right against self incrimination. On review of the record developed at trial, we conclude that if the statements were admitted in error, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Chapman v California, 386 US 18, 24 (1967).

AFFIRMED.